[ipv6-wg] IPv6 on P2P links

Inline: GV>

 

From: ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf
Of Elad Hefetz
Sent: 26 May 2011 10:19
To: Jasper Jans; ipv6-wg at ripe.net
Subject: RE: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 on P2P links

 

 
<http://impactia.bezeqint.co.il/redirect.ASP?id=777&data=CzKhoCXrD8jQJit
d8tSkHt5ZcZSwGdvpM15XhlxVXYF%2BerrLMudEVXXGgj7%2FOnfO&url=https:%2F%2Fon
line.bezeqint.net%2Fupagegateway%2F569%2F66%2FNDZydW5hZklrTjcwNXZJNjBZMz
diQmFjcVNOSFpBU3RjWDdqWm9LSjlCcGVac3VaYS9SUDN4R3NQQWFNR0hFUitqSDMwWVV2S0
R4TwpkTVVySGZhdjIrd3R6NXh4LzJvR1J1ZmVsZzBpdFlWcHR3aXFQZmdDQVExd3c3YTJ2aD
lm> 

 

The major problem I can assume happen when using only link local is the
issue of replacing hardware.
When you replace the cards on the routers it will require you to change
the internal routing protocol (IS-IS \ OSPF). 

GV> this is incorrect, not? ISIS runs over CLNS and OSPFv3 just detects
its neighbor by sending hello's. If you replace HW, then there is no
impact on these protocols at all.

 

Another issue is debugging - when using trace route - all you will see
is link-local addresses which make it very difficult to debug issues. 

GV> depending on the vendor used it may actually give you a loopback
address... because, how can a LL be the source of a ICMP unreachable
reply? (the return packet would not be able to pass the link actually)

We are configuring all our P2P links with /64 prefix on each link. This
is not idle and very wasteful way, but it's the only solution to not
interfere with RFCs and standards.



GV> /127 is now ok also, and doesn't suffer from the well known
ping-pong problem.

Also - this is the only way to be multi vendors prepared, be ready for
future to come with new IPv6 applications and products. 

MHO,
Elad 

 

G/

 

-----Original Message-----



 
From: ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net mailto:[ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf
Of Jasper Jans
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 11:08 AM
To: ipv6-wg at ripe.net
Subject: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 on P2P links

Can anyone give me some real world experience with IPv6 numbering on P2P
links in their network?

I've seen the recommendations swing from '/64' to '/127 if your
equipment can handle it' and even to 'do not assign anything at all just
use link-local' and access your devices over the loopback which your IGP
will distribute.

The last option seems interesting to me from a IP assignment point of
few. It safes me having to allocate a block for this part of the
infrastructure. I'm just wondering if in the long run it will not make
life harder.

Jasper


Op dit e-mailbericht is een disclaimer van toepassing, welke te vinden
is op http://www.espritxb.nl/disclaimer

________________________________

This message was enriched by Impactia Technologies Ltd.    
www.impactia.com
Please do not enrich
<http://impactia.bezeqint.co.il/[email protected]&domai
n=bezeqint.co.il&id=777>  emails sent to me.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/ipv6-wg/attachments/20110526/d1ff2c0b/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 21176 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/ipv6-wg/attachments/20110526/d1ff2c0b/attachment.jpg>